My only question is why didn't they just make the EOS-B the new rebel? The EOS-B has very similar specs to this and is a smaller size. At least if the EOS-B was the new rebel they could say that they changed something and made it smaller, lighter, but with even better performance. This camera seems to be stuck in no mans land.... not so small, not so cheap, and with totally blah specs. At least I could consider trading my T2i for the EOS-B(which I would never do), this camera offers no good reasons to do so.

The EOS-b is simply the equal of Nikon D3200 (just lower pixel count), but much smaller and lighter. Its weight is nearly the same as the OM-D.

My only question is why didn't they just make the EOS-B the new rebel? ... At least if the EOS-B was the new rebel they could say that they changed something and made it smaller, lighter, but with even better performance.

Totally agree, this makes no sense. So the "new" 100D/EOS-B is going to be $800 and the "new" 700D(or "655D") is how much more for roughly the same thing as a 100D and 650D?!

Canon really must want current APS-C owners to upgrade to a 6D, why else release the same 4 year old APS-C cameras again but at a slightly inflated price... "Your upgrade choices are this; buy your current camera again for a little more then you paid last time or double down on a Full Frame."

So, T5i goes head to head against Nikon D5200 while EOS-b competes against the D3200. Not bad.

and they both get punched in the face... Hard... and fall over bleeding

How so? Pixel count? Anything else?

That D5200 has an amazing Toshiba APS-C sensor; with excellent Signal to Noise ratios, Dynamic Range and Low Video Moire. Too bad Nikon set it up with a lack luster, feature-less camera body. I don't know much about the D3200 but it seems to have the Sony sensor found in the D7000 that bested Canon's APS-C image quality. These new Canons still have a better control layout (IMO) and manual video modes (I hope) plus more cross-type AF points and decent fps bursts for photo shooting but if you want/need better Image Quality then Canon may not be what you're looking for anymore (but I'd hold that judgement until these are actually tested)

That D5200 has an amazing Toshiba APS-C sensor; with excellent Signal to Noise ratios, Dynamic Range and Low Video Moire.

Yes, I am fully aware of the sensor differences: pixel count, low ISO dynamic range etc. But feature wise? I really don't see any feature advantage the D5200 has over the T5i, nor the D3200 over the EOS-b. The T5i has more cross AF sensors and the low weight/size of the EOS-b is nothing to snort at (same weight as OM-D).

So, T5i goes head to head against Nikon D5200 while EOS-b competes against the D3200. Not bad.

and they both get punched in the face... Hard... and fall over bleeding

How so? Pixel count? Anything else?

The sensor differences are massive and not just from a number of pixels PoVhow aboutlow iso noise?high iso noise?fixed pattern noise?noise noise noise

$$$$ Price? $$$$

or

how about 39 point AF including 9 cross type on the D5200 vs wait for it 9! on the canon and even the D3200 with its lowly 11 points is still more than the 9 (with 1 cross type that the EOS-B gets

Better RGB metering on both nikons

generally the low end nikons have more features and are a bit more customisable than the low end canons

both nikons have headphone jacks for video audio not sure about these new canons yet

anyway I'm not a nikon fanboy, I used to shoot with nikon and changed to canon but nikon crop cameras have been better than canon crop cameras for quite some time and it looks as if there is going to be no change to that situation

as i've said previously neither of these new canon crop cameras offer anything substantial over a T3i other than maybe extra noisey higher iso images which can have liberal dosages of over the top in camera smudging aka noise reduction applied, especially given the price! anyone in the market for a rebel or cheap DSLR should look at a T3i spend the difference on better glass especially given how cheap refurb units can be had

Canon has become so unimpressive with their camera specs lately. Has anyone seen what even a small family owned company like Sigma is doing? They've managed to stuff a 46MP Foveon Sensor into a point-and-shoot, and their lenses have recently been setting benchmarks that put even the best L glass to shame at a fraction of the cost. Canon needs to get off of their lazy asses and start innovating. They clearly have the means, just apparently not much inspiration.

The way to get to 46MP is by multiplying by 3. It is on the specs page...

Canon still need to get off their you-know-whats but Sigma's 46MP looks like marketing to me.

Still you have to applaud Sigma's effort for at least trying something new (whether it's just marketing hype or not will have to be reserved for real world testing). Canon hasn't had a wow! feature since putting radio transceivers into their flash units (which I absolutely LOVE!). I'll say it again, what really disappoints me with Canon is that they have the largest marketshare and the technology to do so much better, but they seem to be content with just coasting along. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could blow the doors off the competition, so why the mediocre upgrades time and time again? There's no excuse for it. I want Canon to do better because they can.

Pardon me but what's the leak?This spec. is almost a direct copy from the previous generation (maybe there is a new processing engine so ISO range is extended for the sake of JPG but RAW is probably the same).I'm slowly getting used to that Canon is either overpriced or under-specified (compared to e.g. Nikon or mFT).

Some think that the number of pixels defines sensor technology. That's why we had megapixel wars, because the uneducated masses think that more is always better.

While I'm not wishing for more megapixels (I'd be even fine with less) I just could not help not noticing that despite the more megapixels Nikon APS-Cs have at least as good or better IQ at any ISO than the Canon (even on pixel level).

So if those uneducated masses that you started to talk about ever compare IQ wise Canon APS-C with other small sensor systems they can easily come to the same conclusion, but maybe I just misunderstood Canon's strategy with APS-C and they would like to quit from this market segment (and focus on the more juicy FF). Then well done Canon, very well done.

Nevertheless my need for portable small system is fulfilled with mFT so it seems that I don't need to spend on Canon gear this year either.

So if those uneducated masses that you started to talk about ever compare IQ wise Canon APS-C with other small sensor systems they can easily come to the same conclusion, but maybe I just misunderstood Canon's strategy with APS-C and they would like to quit from this market segment (and focus on the more juicy FF). Then well done Canon, very well done.

Nevertheless my need for portable small system is fulfilled with mFT so it seems that I don't need to spend on Canon gear this year either.

Whats your point. Frustrated about Canon? Just buy another camera then, no problem. I cant honestly tell if a photo was shot with a Nikon or Canon.IQ seems good enough with both brands for me.

no not true, the canon full frame sensors are great and have been for ages, 5Dmk3, 1Dx and 6D all do well with regards to noise

The 5D3 and 6D sensors have lower pixel count and poorer low ISO dynamic range compared to that on D800 and D600 respectively. So, there is no technical advantage whatsoever in Canon cameras. So, woe to Canon users.

I cant honestly tell if a photo was shot with a Nikon or Canon.IQ seems good enough with both brands for me.

Even the IQ of mFT cameras have since long surpassed APS-C Canons. If just by a hair or more judge for yourself (don't take my word for it).mFT has also superb compact size primes (just to name some: 12 f/2, 45 f/1.8; but really a long list). Try them once e.g. with Olympus OM-D E-M5 or any recent mFT camera. You'll be surprised...